Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[OntarioSquatch]

I bet if Bill was trying to debunk the PGF, each of you would be right behind him and not putting his past under such harsh scrutiny.

 

[AttorneyTom]

You should sign me, I can have a project whipped together in two weeks with top quality players.

I could use the dough!

Hello,

Are you another of those that have recently come over from the BFRO ? Or other proponents of BF ?

I guess I have seen 10 or so. Why ?

 

[RedRatSnake]

I bet if Bill was trying to debunk the PGF, each of you would be right behind him and not putting his past under such harsh scrutiny.

Don't count me in that. I could careless about his other stuff, Pro BF or not i give the man kudos for his work on the PGF film.

No matter what side ya take it helped everyone​

 

[LTC8K6]

I bet if Bill was trying to debunk the PGF, each of you would be right behind him and not putting his past under such harsh scrutiny.

I couldn't possibly care less about Munns, present or past...

However, why would a believer be trying to debunk the PGF...?

 

[rockinkt]

I bet if Bill was trying to debunk the PGF, each of you would be right behind him and not putting his past under such harsh scrutiny.

No - I'm not an ignorant fool like some people who are just cheerleaders that refuse to look at the evidence and refuse to acknowledge errors and refuse to answer questions about their ridiculous statements.
In other words - I'm not a bit like you.

I don't need anybody to tell me that the PGF is a hoax. I don't need anybody to explain the facts. The facts are available to anybody that can read and using my own knowledge and experience I can conclude that the PGF is a hoax.

 

[River]

I bet if Bill was trying to debunk the PGF, each of you would be right behind him and not putting his past under such harsh scrutiny.

OntarioSquatch: I think you may be a bit quick to lump everyone together. Everyone here has their own opinions about the film, though the general sentiment is the same the details may vary. I personally disagree with Munns on his theories about the film, but do very much appreciate his work archiving the films, and his willingness to share that with other researcher that may not agree with him. (like myself) In that respect, he's definitely helped many that may be interested in the high resolution scans. You won't see me say anything negative about those efforts.

 

[rockinkt]

<snip>
You are making it hard for me to be nice about Mr Munns career! I am aware of his experience, and am trying to not put down anyone's work. I'll just leave it at that.
<snip>

Pointing out Bill Munns lack of success in the Film Industry is not something I do lightly or for fun. I would much rather praise people's work or just give a non-committal answer if asked for an opinion.

However, it is my belief - and has been since Munns placed himself into the Bigfoot game years ago - that he has been engaged in an ongoing fraud by purposely misrepresenting and exaggerating his abilities; while, at the same time, fraudulently making fact-like pronouncements and predictions without a shred of real evidence for the purposes of making money.

Munns displayed all the characteristics of a fraud artist in his BFF1 postings and I called him on it very early in the game.
Later, others pointed out errors in his work and in his conclusions.
He attacked, obfuscated, misrepresented, and threatened those who had the temerity to disagree with him.
He hasn't changed and is getting bolder with the obvious protection he gets on the BFF2.

So - I make an exception for people like Munns and give my real, unadulterated opinion based on the evidence of his deceptions and incompetence.

 

[StankApe]

Hello,

Are you another of those that have recently come over from the BFRO ? Or other proponents of BF ?

I guess I have seen 10 or so. Why ?

I was a regular at the BFF until I had finally had enough of some of the treatment of skeptics and seemingly lauding of obviously mentally ill people over there. so i said so, and got banned.

I've been over at the Bigfoot evidence forum until it got even stranger (and I was being cyber stalked by some odd woman)

so I decided to come over here and at least be able to talk freely about bigfoot without getting crucified for thinking its all a very fun social construction

 

[DozingConsciously]

I was a regular at the BFF until I had finally had enough of some of the treatment of skeptics and seemingly lauding of obviously mentally ill people over there. so i said so, and got banned.

I've been over at the Bigfoot evidence forum until it got even stranger (and I was being cyber stalked by some odd woman)

so I decided to come over here and at least be able to talk freely about bigfoot without getting crucified for thinking its all a very fun social construction

Same-same. Bar the banning. I returned to BFF for the first time in a few months and could barely recognize it. The fact that users were now being asked to pay in order to view content which they'd developed in the first place was especially irritating.

 

[AttorneyTom]

I just wondered. Some of our threads have become some what restricted due to folks from that place and our responses.

I cant speak for everyone but you are welcome here presuming things dont get wacky ? I would offer you a zagnut bar ? In peace and harmony, of course !

 

[StankApe]

I'm generally just a big jokester, people on the BFF never seemed to get that. so I ended up having these long drawn out discussions explaining myself to the point where it just sucked the fun out of it. But the real sin was that the over moderate any questioning of a member.

You are free to say "Bigfoot lives next door and wears a hat and smokes and brings me fruit"

but you are not free to say " I don't think this is true without evidence"

 

[AttorneyTom]

I just wondered. Of course without evidence there is no such thing as a BF. It is sad that people are making money off of this thing and the things they say to perpetuate it all. Dont you think so too ? Obviously the PGF is fiction. Dont you agree ?

 

[StankApe]

sad? I don't know man.... I think that if there's interest in a subject there's no harm in writing books about it. Knowingly hoaxing for profit is fraud of course.

I think that buyer beware comes into play too. But I think most footers suspect it doesn't exist they just like the comradery/hobby aspect of it.

 

[Sonny2]

I think for a lot of Footers it's more like a way to get out of reality w/o doing drugs, alcohol, or having to buy a hobby. It's combining adventure and the outdoors with being a bit freaked out and getting an endorphin rush. Kind of a fun and free hobby (though some spend money on it).

 

[tsig]

What does Bill Munns have to do with the Tar Man that you see on the screen? William Stout was the man behind the design of what you see and Kenny Myers and Tony Gardner fixed and finished the unsatisfactory sculpting by Munns.

edit: To be fair - it may have been the nowhere near completed work of Bill Munns that had to be completed by Kenny Myers (the guy who was hired to replace the fired Munns) on the Tar Man. Actual incompetence on the Tar Man has not been shown.
Munns was fired from the film for generally incompetent work but the final straw was when the yellow cadaver put on weight all of a sudden when its head was chopped off.
One should take note of the lack of film work done by Munns after his work was singled out and he was fired for incompetence in the film The Return of the Living Dead if one is wondering about his reputation and ability in the film industry.

Humm.. proven incompetent decides to cut himself a fat haunch of bigfoot.

 

[tsig]

I bet if Bill was trying to debunk the PGF, each of you would be right behind him and not putting his past under such harsh scrutiny.

He put his past under such harsh scrutiny.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Wow. My wife is happy I don't post much now but there's been some great stuff posted. Sheesh, poor old Munns has taken a beating on his "film industry" work. Ouch, Rockinkt.

Very curious about the 45 minute film used in the road show parnassus - do tell if you saw that.

Those who know my hobby horse is manipulative tactics of personality disorders... Tom - one of the all-time classics of the Covert Aggressive is to bait people into reacting and then blame them for it. Getting a thread put on moderated status is an enormous victory for that kind of personality. William Parcher is saying that bigfoot is not a belief, but an institution. Absolutely.

For many it is a platform to operate from. A con-man doesn't believe in the play he is making. His expertise is in using other people's emotions against them - greed, loneliness, etc. With skeptics the most important tactic is making them angry, which requires outrageous behavior under the veneer of plausible deniability. Acting like an idiot gets people calling you an idiot, which is something you can hit the "report post" function for. That's where the glory is. The great thing about covert aggression is that it doesn't take intelligence. All it takes is a lack of conscience.

We aren't speaking of the casual 'footer who hasn't looked into it much. Ask what the most salient feature of Roger Patterson's personality was: zero conscience about screwing people for money. Look at all the niche markets developed by Munns, The Melba, Dr. Merldumb etc., and its all about unscrupulous deception. You ask yourself "how can they conscience what they are doing?!" Might as well as why cats like catnip. That's how they are wired.

Getting a bunch of skeptics pissed off is like running a lure through a school of bass and watching them fight over it. StankApe, I understand what you are saying about the camaraderie. The insidious thing about attaching yourself to a lie though is that it subverts decent behavior. The deeper you go into it the greater the reliance upon unconscionable tactics with other people. Once you have learned these tactics of handling people in the bigfoot arena, they are easily adapted everywhere in your life. You can play dumb, practice selective attention/inattention, evade, divert, play the victim, blame the victim, shame, etc. in order to get what you want. It is a school, by definition, of antisocial behavior.

What defines James Randi's work instead? It is the exact opposite: exposing the unscrupulous. Busting con-men and their deceptions. Promoting honest interaction with others. Sure, there is a romance in the notion of a hominid cousin living in the wilds. But the fact is it requires setting aside our scruples to belong to a club that peddles a lie and that is a sacrifice we should not make. Because the tactics it requires we adopt are by definition antisocial.

 

[River]

Pointing out Bill Munns lack of success in the Film Industry is not something I do lightly or for fun. I would much rather praise people's work or just give a non-committal answer if asked for an opinion.

However, it is my belief - and has been since Munns placed himself into the Bigfoot game years ago - that he has been engaged in an ongoing fraud by purposely misrepresenting and exaggerating his abilities; while, at the same time, fraudulently making fact-like pronouncements and predictions without a shred of real evidence for the purposes of making money.

Munns displayed all the characteristics of a fraud artist in his BFF1 postings and I called him on it very early in the game.
Later, others pointed out errors in his work and in his conclusions.
He attacked, obfuscated, misrepresented, and threatened those who had the temerity to disagree with him.
He hasn't changed and is getting bolder with the obvious protection he gets on the BFF2.

So - I make an exception for people like Munns and give my real, unadulterated opinion based on the evidence of his deceptions and incompetence.

Understood. (did from the beginning) I'm not against anyone stating the truth about someones career, or skills. (or lack of them) I just tend to stay away from giving my own opinion about them unless asked or needed. (if it's going to be a negative answer) So I too would rather give praise or give a non-committal type of response in most cases if my answer might not be positive. I do see the relevance here, and how it applies to his current claims with the PGF.

Lets use an analogy for a second. If a person has a health issue. (or in this case monster suits) and is seeking a physician to not only diagnose properly but treat the ailment properly as well. For this analogy I'll say we have a breast lump that may or may not need surgery depending on its diagnoses and biopsy.

Lets say we have a list of ten doctors, with ratings about their success rates and reputation as a doctor. (for your specific condition, or in this case, monster making) Maybe three of those doctors have a top rating, and great success rates with few mistakes or malpractices. Five have average ratings, and two have substandard ratings.

So when seeking out a doctor, are we going to choose the substandard doctor to treat? Or would you choose one of the top rated, or at least average ones, avoiding the substandard doctors?

Lets take it a step further, and say you speak to all ten of the physicians and get their diagnoses, and recommendations for treatment. Out of those ten opinions, which ones would you be more likely to take? In this case, we chose the substandard doctor, and ended up with a poor diagnoses, and not given the proper treatment. So not only do you not get treated properly, you prolong the proper diagnoses and treatment allowing the illness to perhaps spread.

So yes, I understand the reasons for pointing out the failures, and the good points of Mr Munns career in the film industry, and monster making world. I think Mr Munns claims about the film (his diagnoses) and his methods for seeking those answers (his treatment, or diagnoses techniques) may be flawed as well. So of course, we're going to end up with a result (his claims) that are not necessarily accurate, or in some cases just plain wrong.

I'm not trying to protect Munns by not "going there" in my posts, but rather it has all been made public before and I'm fully aware of his experience, and his skill levels in those aspects. Obfuscated I think was a good term you used to describe what we are seeing with his PGF work. There are still articles being posted on believer sites using his over 7 foot tall height estimate. He doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry to "correct" himself on that. Instead of offering what may be more accurate estimates, or retracting his obviously inaccurate ones, he postpones while the muddying of the waters occurs. I suspect Mr Munns is intelligent enough to know exactly how this game works, and how it is used to promote bigfoot on many fronts.

In this specific case, we have many other FX artists opinion on this film. (Rick Baker, Howard Berger, Dave Kindlon, John Vulich, Verne Langdon, Tom Burman, Matt Croteau, Mike McCracken Jr, Bob Schiffer, Stan Winston, and perhaps more that I had not discovered) All ten of them stated this film represents a man in a suit. Munns is the only monster suit guy/FX guy that I'm aware of claiming the PGF represents a real animal. (was he perhaps involved in making the suit? lol he sure promotes it enough and I think he did begin his fx career in 67?)

I've sent you a PM about your music industry work. Just trying to see if you "are who you say you are", or rather just checking your claims. (besides that, we really may know each other, or have mutual acquaintances)

 

[River]

snip

Very curious about the 45 minute film used in the road show parnassus - do tell if you saw that.

/snip

I'm also curious about this "new footage" allegedly of Patterson making a cast of an impression. I suspect it is either non related, or misidentified and is been the footage we have all seen already. (perhaps flip framed, or full frame format)

What can you tell us about that parn?

 

[StankApe]

I asked Bill why my "foot as ruler" method of determining height differed from his "careful measurements" that determined height by over a foot (mine was 6'1-6'4 his was 7'0-7'6) and that I was sure that my method had a large margin of error doubted it was 13 inches (or roughly 80% of one Patty foot) wrong.

His response was that his experience and extreme care in measuring made his results infallible and my method was inherently wrong.

Now, let's be honest here, can you really say that using the foot as ruler method could really be off an entire foot?


it's either that or the reported size of the Patty tracks is off by 3 inches each (making them 11.5 inches )